Personalized medicine, sometimes called precision medicine, has become a major buzzword in the pharmaceutical industry. For decades, scientists and physicians have puzzled over why some treatments are very successful for one patient, while other seemingly similar patients given the same treatment fail to get better. The idea behind personalized medicine is that by characterizing genetic factors, epigenetic information, levels of RNA expression, and other individual factors, we can better target our treatments to the people most likely to respond to them.

Shooting for the Moon: A New Cancer Immunotherapy Initiative

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy electrified the nation when he declared our intent to send a man to the moon. This year, President Obama declared a new “shoot for the moon” endeavor: to find an effective immunotherapy treatment for cancer by the year 2020.

Breakthroughs & Setbacks in Cancer Immunotherapies

When President Nixon declared a war on cancer in 1971, scientists and the general public were energized about the possibility of eliminating these costly and deadly diseases. In the decades following, however, many initially promising treatments failed to deliver expected results. Although the medical community has become more skilled at targeting treatments to specific cancers, cancer remains the second most common cause of death in the United States.

Now, breakthroughs in immunological technology have renewed scientists’ enthusiasm and excitement about novel cancer treatments. Cancer immunotherapies have the potential to shift the medical landscape by reducing the toll the disease takes on patients and society at large.

The Shift to Immunosurveillance in Breast Cancer Treatment

As we've discussed previously on the blog, bio-pharmaceutical entities are scrambling to bring new immunotherapies to the clinic, particularly in the treatment of cancers. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other regulatory agencies worldwide have already approved several immunotherapies for the treatment of various tumors, including melanoma and non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). However, pre-clinical and clinical trials to assess the safety and efficacy of investigational immunotherapies for breast cancer have only recently begun.

Tackling Global Health Initiatives and HIV/AIDS at the PEPFAR Roundtable

Global health initiatives work to assess, monitor, and ultimately effect positive improvements in the well-being of citizens around the world. The battle against the spread of HIV/AIDs is one that has been in the news for decades and with organizations like the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), global leaders are working together to combat this disease.

Recently, Thermo Fisher Scientific teamed up with the Business Council for International Understanding (BCIU) to host a roundtable discussion between leaders in the Global Health industry and Ambassador Deborah Birx, the US Global AIDS Coordinator in charge of overseeing and leading PEPFAR. PEPFAR is widely cited as the largest commitment by any nation to combat a single disease in history and is one of the most successful global health programs in the world.

In this blog I’ll give some insight into the roundtable discussion and review some of the key points global health leaders are addressing for those affected by HIV/AIDS.

Sample Fidelity: Authenticate Your Cell Lines, Protect Your Research

In July, 2007 Dr. Roland Nardone, Professor Emeritus of the Discovery Center for Cell and Molecular Biology of the Catholic University of America, and 18 of his colleagues penned a powerful letter regarding the topic of misidentification and cross-contamination of cell lines to Michael O. Leavitt, then Secretary of Health and Human Services. The 18 researchers who added their signatures to the letter represented both extensive experience in cell culture and a cross-sample of governmental, corporate, and academic institutions in the US and the UK. In his letter, Nardone informed Secretary Levitt of the extent of misidentification of cell lines being distributed amongst scientists and warned of the “resulting corruption of biomedical research” and “grave public health consequences.” He urged both an educational initiative about misidentified call lines and a specific mechanism by funding agencies to ensure the authentication of cell lines: no authentication, no funding.